Passive-Aggressive Approach to Governing

The Santa Fe Reporter has a good article (ok, maybe I'm partial to articles that quote me) on Governor Richardson's attempt to avoid criticism by pocket vetoing several important bills.

Nevertheless, there are common threads among the pocket vetoed bills: oversight, transparency and executive branch autonomy, particularly regarding health care.

Sen. Steven Neville, R-San Juan, had no illusions about what would happen to SB 460, his bill to strip Richardson’s control of the State Investment Council and create more oversight.

“The day it was passed, I figured it would be vetoed,” Neville tells SFR. “Most of us who were involved with the bill pretty well felt that the governor would not want to lose that control over the Investment Council.”

In an April 22 press release, Neville demanded Richardson explain the pocket veto in light of allegations of “insiders” kickbacks from the SIC for steering contracts.

“I’ve had no official word at all from the governor’s office,” Neville says. “That’s the beauty of the pocket veto. They don’t have to comment either way.”

With all of the scandals hitting the media regarding state investments, you've got to wonder how Governor Richardson thinks he can get away with pocket vetoes?

Sole Sourcing Off-The-Shelf Lawsuits

Just when you think the pay-to-play scandals in New Mexico can't get any worse, they do. Apparently, flowers are not the only things that bloom during the spring season in New Mexico.

Last week brought news that Governor Bill Richardson's campaign and political action committees received nearly $200,000 from money managers and brokers who were seeking access to the state's multibillion dollar pension funds.

Okay, I know, old news. But, this same editorial takes a deeper look at the ethically questionable behavior coming out of the Attorney General's office. Mind you, we were hopeful that when pay-for-access AG Patricia Madrid left office, things would get better. But, it now looks like the players may change, but the game remains the same.

As for Mr. King, he is underselling his political talents. Campaign records show that in the month before his 2006 election, his campaign received $50,000 from Houston lawyer Kenneth Bailey and Mr. Bailey's previous law firm in two $25,000 installments, one of which came within a week of Election Day.

And, what does $50,000 buy these days?

However, you have to wonder just how vital this particular lawsuit is, since it was marketed to New Mexico and many other state AGs as an off-the-shelf product by the Bailey firm.

It would seem it is the going price to bring win the right to sue in the name of the State. When law firms are able to buy the right to sue companies on behalf of the state in exchange for a political contribution. We're all in trouble.

Now, in all fairness, some of you may think I'm jumping to conclusions here. These campaign contributions, and the resulting "gift" to the law firm may just be coincidental. For those of you feel this way, I'd suggest you look no further than Attorney General Gary King's own analysis regarding appearances:

"There's an old saying that if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then its probably a duck," say AG King. "And I think we know a duck when we see one."

Well, I guess duck hunting season is starting a little earlier this year..

Remembering Robert Vigil and Michael Montoya

It seems like a long time ago, right? Every day and every night the news was filled with stories of former New Mexico Treasurers Robert Vigil and Michael Montoya, and their scandalous, kickback driven investments of taxpayer funds. Of course, it wasn't really that long ago. In fact, it's only been four years.

And, four years later, it looks like we've still have all of the EXACT SAME corruption problems. Sure it's different people taking money. But, the result is basically the same. New Mexico taxpayers are the big losers. Four years ago we had lost millions of dollars. Now we've lost billions of dollars.

So, who is to blame? Well, we can obviously start at the top. A little less than four years ago, our Governor Richardson made the following proclamation:

Governor Bill Richardson has ordered "a comprehensive review of state investments and investment contracts, and is proposing a number of strict new procedures regarding the state investment process," his office announced Tuesday. The announcement comes on the heels of State Treasurer Robert Vigil and former State Treasurer Michael Montoya being arrested and charged with extorting kickbacks from brokers handling state investment accounts.

Richardson said the state will conduct "a top to bottom review of all investment practices and a review of all investment contracts and has directed state agencies to conduct an internal assessment of all investment activities at all levels of state government."

Well, in light of the ongoing federal investigations, we have only two possible conclusions to draw:

1. The Governor failed miserably in his promise to conduct a top to bottom review of all investment practices.
   
   OR
   
   
2. The Governor and his administration conducted this full assessment and decided it was in their own self interest to keep pay to play schemes in place and continue the time honored practice of defrauding taxpayers.

It will be interesting to see if the current federal investigation turns up the results of the"internal assessment of all investment activities" that was required of each state agency. Actually, why wait fro the federal investigation to be complete. Maybe one of our state's remaining reporters will file a FOIA request to get a peak at those assessments.

But, is it only the Governor who is to blame? No. As mentioned above, there are appointees who obviously failed to do their jobs. There are also the legislators who acted as enablers:

Until 2005, the ERB was limited in what types of investments it could make, primarily stocks and bonds with a history of paying dividends.

The legislature changed that in 2005, but it took the ERB the better part of a year to get into a position to diversify its investments to include hedge funds, private equity funds that invest in companies that are not publicly traded and other specialty areas.

We've got another round of elections coming up. First, the Albuquerque City elections, and then before we know it, we'll have the statewide elections in 2010. If we vote the same people back into office time and time again, the cycle of corruption will continue. Isn't time to say enough is enough?

Mayor Chavez Buys Votes for $1.3 Million

I've long been an opponent of publicly funded campaigns, and it appears that the mayoral campaign currently underway is the perfect case study of why using our tax dollars to elect politicians is a lousy idea.

First, let's consider how Albuquerque's incumbent Mayor Marty Chavez was able to get on the ballot:

The confirmed city employees constitute 42 percent of the volunteer base used to collect the qualifying donations, making Fleisher correct in that respect. But those employees collected more than their share of the contributions. The review shows that 152 of the 295 books, or 52 percent, were used by city employees to qualify the mayor for public financing.

For example, the city’s employee relations manager, Lawrence Torres — who is the administration’s liaison with the city’s unionized workers — collected 10 books for the mayor, which was the largest group of books collected by one individual. Torres confirmed he collected the contributions, but declined to discuss how he did it, or why he participated in the drive.

Along with Torres, many of the city’s department directors — who are appointed by the mayor — collected contributions, as did many of their department managers plus the mayor’s own staff.

In other words, there is nothing grassroots about the whole taxpayer funded campaign program. The biggest beneficiaries are those already in office. Of course, getting your appointees to collect the signatures and money you need to get on the ballot and rake in the taxpayer money is only the beginning of the story.

Next comes the actual execution of the campaign. This is where you have to convince people to vote for you. Of course, once again, the incumbent in this case, Mayor Marty Chavez, has a great strategy. Try and buy the votes of a large voting block:

Mayor Martin Chávez says the city's blue-collar, clerical, security and transit employees won't have to wait an extra six months for their annual pay raises.

Chávez said his budget office had found about $1.3 million that isn't needed in a workman's compensation fund. That will allow the city to provide pay raises to more of its employees on July 1, the mayor said. The raises are expected to be about 3 percent.

That's amazing! Mayor Chavez found $1.3 million to pass out as raises. Somebody please explain to me how that happens. Last I checked the City of Albuquerque was looking at huge budget shortfalls:

Albuquerque faces a $20 million budget shortfall because of the worsening economy, and city officials are trying bridge the budget gap without laying off city workers.

In fact, the $20 million budget shortfall is just the beginning. It has been estimated that this amount will grow even larger next year. Yet, the Mayor is handing out raises. There is only one motivation to do this - buying votes!

More Thoughts on Education

Yesterday, I posted on the absurdity of the education industry suing the state because they think they are being shortchanged when it comes to funding. Today there is an interesting article about APS inability to track something as controlled as the number of standardized tests taken in a given classroom:

Data showing Albuquerque Public Schools elementary proficiency rates by classroom apparently miscounted the number of students in some classrooms.

Several teachers reported to the Journal that the number of exams that APS reported for their classrooms was inaccurate. The data, which was prepared by APS, was posted on the Journal's Web site in late February.

Fourth-grade teacher Cathy Jordan said she and her principal sat down and tried to figure out how the district's numbers were different from her own.

"I had 21 students last year, and all the students took both the reading and math tests," wrote Jordan, a teacher at SY Jackson Elementary. "So, I should have 42 tests or 21 tests. How could there only be 32?"

The APS results show the number of math and reading tests, according to the district, so 42 tests in most cases reflects 21 students.

A spokesman for APS said in some cases, tests were considered "spoiled" and not counted, so it looked like there were fewer students who completed the test than were in the class.

In other cases, students' tests may have been mistakenly assigned to the wrong classrooms in the school.

The troubling part here is that those accountable for accountability are not able to give a straight answer. Overall, our school systems are a mess. That is not to say there aren't some great public schools. There are. Nor, is it intended to mean that all teachers are bad. The VAST majority are very good. But, the system is broken. It has grown and evolved in a way that no longer makes sense.

Essentially, the education industry is asking for a larger bailout every year to fix problems that cannot be fixed by money alone. And, this is not a New Mexico only problem. This is a national crisis that threatens our future ability to compete globally, and the worst part of all of this is that this inequity impacts those among us with the least resources the most. Consider what is going on in D.C. with regard to the successful voucher program:

The students, almost all of them black and Hispanic, patched together the voucher money with scholarships, other grants and parents willing to make sacrifices to pay their tuition.

What happened, according to a Department of Education study, is that after three years the voucher students scored 3.7 months higher on reading than students who remained in the D.C. schools. In addition, students who came into the D.C. voucher program when it first started had a 19 month advantage in reading after three years in private schools.

It is really upsetting to see that the Heritage Foundation has discoverd that 38 percent of the members of Congress made the choice to put their children in private schools. Of course, Secretary Duncan has said he decided not to live in Washington, D.C. because he did not want his children to go to public schools there. And President Obama, who has no choice but to live in the White House, does not send his two daughters to D.C. public schools, either. They attend a private school, Sidwell Friends, along with two students who got there because of the voucher program.

This reckless dismantling of the D.C. voucher program does not bode well for arguments to come about standards in the effort to reauthorize No Child Left Behind. It does not speak well of the promise of President Obama to be the “Education President,’ who once seemed primed to stand up for all children who want to learn and especially minority children.

My kids are in APS schools, but they have never gone to their "designated" school. We've placed them in schools that we felt would best match their educational needs. When those needs have changed, we've moved them to other schools. We've been advocates on behalf of our children. I spent ten years in education, so I know how to get the most out of the system. But, others are not as fortunate, and the one size fits all approach just doesn't work - no matter how much money we throw at it.

Maybe an Educator Would Like to Chime In

My kids are getting a public education. So, I should get behind anything that brings more money into the schools, right? Wrong. More money does not equal a better education. Case in point:

Since the 2000-01 school year, public education funding in New Mexico to this year has increased by $949 million, or 57 percent, according to the Department of Finance and Administration. During that same period, enrollment has remained relatively flat, growing about 1 percent to nearly 324,000, according to the state Public Education Department.

Yet, despite the facts above "education advocates" would like to sue the state under the premise that they aren't being sufficiently funded. Am I missing something here? There has been a 57% increase in funding. I can't seem to find the report that indicates that indicates there has been a 57% increase in student performance. Oh right, it's because it doesn't exist.

Why Not Call a Parent?

I don't understand how any school could think it is okay to strip search a child?

The case is centered around Savana Redding, now 19, who in 2003 was an eighth-grade honors student at Safford Middle School, about 127 miles from Tucson, Arizona. Redding was strip-searched by school officials after a fellow student accused her of providing prescription-strength ibuprofen pills.

The school has a zero-tolerance policy for all prescription and over-the-counter medication, including the ibuprofen, without prior written permission.

Wouldn't it have made more sense to call in one of the child's parents?

Tea Party and Baseball

It was a slice of Americana. My family and I went to catch an Isotopes game last night, but not before taking part in the "parade" down Montgomery:

Several thousand people brandishing signs and carrying tea bags jammed a long Albuquerque boulevard on Wednesday as Americans protesting federal government tax and spending policies conducted "tea parties" across the country.

Demonstrators in northeast Albuquerque lined both sides of Montgomery NE for about six blocks, waving American flags and cheering back at many slow-moving drivers honking their horns in apparent support.

They joined other demonstrators in New Mexico and across the country on a symbolic day — the deadline for Americans to file their income taxes.

Traffic slowed to a crawl and some drivers — clearly fewer than those honking in approval — jeered at the demonstrators. Albuquerque police reported no major disturbances.

"Americans are fed up with their wallets being held hostage by special interest groups and politicians," said Floyd Smith of Albuquerque, who was among the demonstrators on Montgomery.

I say parade because that's exactly what it felt like. It's kind of interesting, but words like demonstrators and protesters bring up images of angry mobs. Yet, what my family experienced on our detour down Montgomery on our way to the baseball game was nothing like that. People of all ages were smiling and waving signs and flags. Cars were honking, passengers were waving and flashing thumbs up in support.

This gives me hope for 2010.

An Increase is an Increase

Taking a page out of the government's playbook to separate you from your money, it looks like CNM is being more than a little disingenuous here:

The good news: Most students at Central New Mexico Community College won't pay more for tuition during the upcoming academic year.

The bad news: They'll begin paying a $3-per-credit-hour technology fee, raising the cost of attending the state's largest community college by $36 a semester for a student taking 12 credit hours.

CNM's governing board approved the new tuition and fee rates Tuesday.

The board also approved a $187 million budget for the college, which enrolls close to 25,000 students.

Because of statewide budget cuts, the budget the governing board approved includes no salary increases.

According to a CNM news release, this is the third year the school's governing board has not increased in-district tuition, which is $41 per credit hour.

It's that last line that really gets my goat. No matter how you slice it, "a $3-per-credit-hour technology fee" increase is a 7% increase in tuition. I'm not quite sure who the governing board at CNM think they're kidding, but it is wrong for them to pretend that they are not increasing tuition costs (i.e. the cost to attend) when they absolutely are.

Happy Tax Day!

Strange Polls Emerge

It must be the season of nonsensical polls. No, I'm not talking about the Westside only mayoral poll with no percentages being released by Joe Monahan. I'm actually thinking about the CNN poll under the headline, American's Think Obama is on Track with the Economy. It reads a little something like this:

Hours before President Barack Obama on Tuesday morning delivers what the White House calls a major speech on the economy, a new national poll indicates that nearly six in 10 Americans think he has a clear plan for solving the country's economic problems.

Fifty-eight percent of people questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Tuesday morning say Obama has a clear plan to deal with the recession. That's more than double the 24% who think that Republicans in Congress have a clear plan on the economy. Nearly three in four polled say the GOP doesn't have a clear economic plan.

Maybe it's just me, but the whole article seems somewhat biased. First off, shouldn't a poll compare Republicans in Congress to Democrats in Congress? Anyone who pays any attention to polling numbers in recent years knows that Congress lags the President. Even when President Bush had his lowest approval ratings, Congress had even lower approval ratings.

Only 29 percent of Americans gave Bush a positive grade for his job performance, below his worst Zogby poll mark of 30 percent in March. A paltry 11 percent rated Congress positively, beating the previous low of 14 percent in July.

The article attempts to put positive spin after postive spin on the public perception of President Obama:

Sixty-two percent of those surveyed say Obama is doing enough to cooperate with Republicans in Congress. Though that's down from 74% in February, it's still ahead of the 37% who think that congressional Republicans are doing enough to cooperate with Obama. Six in 10 say the GOP is not doing enough to reach out and work with the president.

Again, comparing Presidential polling numbers to Congressional polling numbers is a reach. In the paragraph above, it is clear that the focus is trying to be switched away from the fact that there is a 12% drop in those that perceive the President is trying to act in a bipartisan manner to tackle the economic crisis.

I fully expect that 58% number to continue to decline in the coming months. No, it's not because I wish failure upon the President. I don't wish failure upon anyone, and especially when that failure means hardship for more of my neighbors, friends and family. But, I do believe the policies introduced are dooming us to failure. Sure, there are those that are trying to paint a rosy picture:

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said Tuesday there's been "tentative signs" that the recession may be easing. But he also warned that any hope for a lasting recovery hinges on the government's success in stabilizing shaky financial markets and getting credit to flow more freely again.

Specifically, the Fed chief mentioned improvements in recent data on home and auto sales, home building and consumer spending as flickering signs of encouragement.

But, I'm sorry. The blips up in one sector are no more a sign of economic recovery than that the radical fluctuations from day to day in the markets. Need proof? Well, consider at the same time that the Fed chief was talking about improvements in the economy we can also read about the following declines:

Retail sales suffered an unexpected big decline in March which broke two straight months of improving sales, the government reported Tuesday.

The Commerce Department said total retail sales fell 1.1% last month, compared with February's revised gain of 0.3%. Sales in February were originally reported to have dipped 0.1%.

Economists surveyed by Briefing.com had been expecting an increase of 0.3% in March.

Until we start facing reality, we are not going to be able to deal with the crisis at hand. No amount of spin can turn this around. Spending ourselves further into debt isn't the solution either.

For the 42% of you that feel the same way, I hope you'll come out tomorrow to Independence Grill and join the Albuquerque Tea Party Tax Day Rally.

The Bottom Two Percent

The bottom two percent is where the Public Employee Retiree Association (PERA) found itself when the dust settled at the end of the 2008. The investment strategy that was signed off on by the State Investment Council members (SIC) put it into the bottom two percent in the nation. Of course, it wasn't just PERA funds that suffered under the State Investment Council guidance: [see update at the end of this post in red].

The PERA fund's annual performance ranked in the 99th percentile of similar funds in the nation, meaning that 98 percent of funds performed better, according to the LFC. The land grant fund ranked in the 61st percentile, the severance tax fund in the 78th, and the ERB in the 85th.

A variety of problems affected each fund's performance, since each fund's asset mix and objectives are different. The State Investment Council manages the land grant and severance tax funds. ERB and PERA each have separate managements.

The LFC found PERA suffered from a "large exposure to international equity investments." As of Dec. 31, 21 percent of PERA's assets were in international equity. While that allocation proved "extremely advantageous throughout the middle part of the decade," the sector has fallen more than 45 percent in the past year, LFC said.

ERB's worst performing asset classes were fixed income and hedge funds, LFC found. The hedge fund assets under-performed benchmarks "by a staggering 1,920 basis points," according to LFC. A basis point is one 100th of a percentage point.

Contributing to the severance tax fund's decline were "economically targeted investments," which the LFC said are "intended to stimulate the New Mexico economy despite having a lower than market rate return."

That last point is really a sore point for me. This could have easily been prevented. Don't get me wrong, we would have lost money like everyone else, but we didn't have to be in the bottom two percent of the nation. Let's roll back the clock two and half years to see how we landed on this worst in the nation list:

You read that correctly. An advisor to the state was terminated because, well, because they did their job. They advised the state against making an investment that would not yield the good financial returns New Mexicans should expect from an investment. If our advisors are supposed to be "on the same page" as the state, it kind of makes you wonder why we need advisors?

So, what was this unsound investment that "the state" wanted made? Well, you had to wait a few months to get the inside scoop:

Cincinnati-based Fort Washington Capital Partners resigned as the SIC's investment advisor for the program last July, citing disagreements with the state over its role. The state had asked Fort Washington to render opinions on two large investments in space-related companies and Fort Washington refused, arguing that the proposals seemed more like economic development projects than private equity transactions.

Go back and read the entire original post and let me know if it doesn't jut set your blood a boiling. And, if that doesn't put you over the edge, maybe the SIC's investment in Bahrain owned companies to supposedly "stimulate the local economy" will do the trick.

UPDATE: Looks like I may have misread that article Albuquerque Journal article this morning. PERA made it's own investment decisions without any input or oversight from the SIC. Below is the email I received from the SIC's Public Information Officer:

Mr. Burgos,

While I understand the your blog’s intention is primarily to offer opinion, it appears the core premise of your post today is based on a completely faulty assumption that Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) investment strategy is signed off on by the State Investment Council (SIC).

For the record, SIC and PERA are two completely separate entities managing different Funds for the State of New Mexico. PERA has its own investments, managers and board of directors. SIC has ZERO input, influence and control over PERA Funds, and State Investment Council members have nothing to do with PERA performance.

The Education Retirement Board (ERB), likewise, is managed by different people, with a different board who oversee separate investments.

Unfortunately, there are similar factual problems with the rest of your post regarding a very old concern we had with Fort Washington, and a more current third-party criticism – which also has some significant factual problems. We would be glad to address these individually if presented in a meaningful way and I invite you to contact me on these issues if you like.

While SIC performance for the 4th quarter was definitely below par, this was primarily due to the historic market challenges and negative effects of a conservative hedging strategy that while well intentioned, hurt performance during December’s market rally. This same strategy in the first quarter of 2009 should easily put the SIC in the top 25% of peer funds around the country. Those performance numbers will be available in the coming weeks, and I will certainly make those available for your review.

While I am unable to post this response to your website, you may certainly do so if you believe it is appropriate. I do hope that you address the factual problems I address here as soon as practicable.

Regards,

Charles Wollmann
Public Information Officer
New Mexico State Investment Council
(505) 476-9540 office
(505) 231-3334 cell

I did leave Mr. Wollmann a voicemail, and am eager to hear more about the "factual problems with the rest of [my] post regarding a very old concern [they] had with Fort Washington, and a more current third-party criticism." Mr. Wollmann is correct that I formulate opinions - nothing more, nothing less - based on the information I have at hand. Sometimes, I misinterpret that information. Hey, I'm only human. But, like you, I'm always eager to hear the other side of the story.

Indictments are a Distraction

By now you know that PRC Commissioner Jerome Block, Jr. has been indicted. How Jerome Block, Jr. ever got elected is still a mystery to me. Everything in this guy's recent past seemed to indicate this outcome. But, I have to admit that I find this to be a sad statement on New Mexico's tolerance of illegal behavior among elected officials:

PRC chairman Sandy Jones said it was too early to say whether Block should consider resigning or recusing himself from votes on the commission. Jones said Block had "hit the ground running" and shown commitment to the job since taking office Jan. 1.

"I'm confident right now he's doing what he needs to do," said Jones, even as he acknowledged that the indictments were a distraction.

Only in New Mexico politics could an indictment be considered nothing more than a "distraction."

Euthanizing Chickens

Maybe it's just me, but there sure does seem to be a disconnect going on in New Mexico. A team of 40 people conducted a cockfighting raid in Dona Ana County and:

Beth Vesco-Mock, animal shelter director, said she received an order from the sheriff's department to euthanize all the birds. She said shelter staff euthanized them in two waves — one group of 358 animals Saturday night and a second group of 47 Sunday morning.

In total the news story reports that 618 birds were euthanized. In other news:

New Mexico is among the states with the highest rate of hunger, or food insecurity, in the nation. Much of it is the result of the poverty endemic to the state, but food banks in New Mexico also report an increase this year in the number of working and middle class people needing food aid.

Hmm, I wonder if euthanzing those birds was really the best way to go?

Why is This so Hard to Understand?

I was vehemently opposed to regional cap and trade legislation introduced this past session because it would put New Mexico at an economic disadvantage and drive one of the cornerstones of our economy, the oil and gas industry, to other states while accomplishing nothing to deal with the global warming obsession that has been so heartily embraced by the left.

Quite honestly, rushing through national cap and trade legislation during a time of economic crisis would be equally foolish. Heck, for that matter, rushing through any far-reaching legislation on the federal level during any kind of crisis sets a bad precedent. So, my hat is off to Senator Jeff Bingaman:

Bingaman, who has worked for years to pass climate change legislation, joined Republicans for last week's vote because he did not want to short-circuit the deliberation needed to come up with a workable bill, spokeswoman Jude McCartin said.

The rules being considered would have allowed climate change legislation to be folded into the Senate's consideration of the federal budget, which allows limited debate and requires 51 votes for passage.

There are those who believe the world is warming on and on the road to an impending doom (I'm not one of them), but at least cooler heads have prevailed in the Senate.

You Have the Right to Remain Silent

Thanks to countless television shows and movies, I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone in America that doesn't know about the Miranda Warnings. Keeping those rights in mind, watch the video below (Hat tip: Blue Collar Muse).



This is not a partisan issue. The previous administration put the TSA in place under the guise of safeguarding America. The intrusion on freedom and privacy concerned me then, and it concerns me now. Review history, and you'll discover that it does not take long for governments to move from intrusive to oppressive. There are ample number of examples on the left and the right.

It is easy to look back at how the Nazi's round up Jews during World War II and wonder how all of those millions of people allowed themselves to be loaded up into cattle cars and taken to their deaths. Yet, look at how quickly we've given up the right to move freely around the country. It's been less than 10 years, and already the nation has grown accustomed to moving through cattle lines for processing and being detained for questioning.

The Nazi's did not start filing people into ovens from Day One. There were steps that were taken to acclimate the public over a number of years. They were taken in the name of national interest.

The continued and ever growing encroachment on our personal freedoms coupled with the global economic crisis and escalation of the threats by North Korea and in the Middle East are a combination that historically have set the stage for increased government control and oppression.

Am I being overly alarmist? I don't think so. As George Santayana so aptly wrote, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

Today, I turn 40. I would like to enjoy for the next forty years of my life the same freedoms I have enjoyed during the first forty. But, more importantly, I'd like my children and their children's children to enjoy those freedoms. For that to happen, we must ALL safeguard those freedoms regardless of political persuasion. We are no longer at the precipice of a slippery slope. We are now sliding down it.

Make the Call (505) 476-2200

Here's a fact. Anytime Democracy for New Mexico and I are in agreement that a bill should be signed into law, you can rest assured that it is a good idea:

Take Action: Please call Gov. Richardson ASAP at (505) 476-2200 and urge him to sign Rep. Cervantes' Open Conference Committees bill, HB 393, as he promised to do last week. The Governor has until April 10th to sign the bill. The legislation passed the House 66-0 vote and the Senate 33-8.

Governor Richardson is playing games here, and it stinks. First, he says no one cares about more transparency in government, which is a bunch of baloney. Now, he's claiming he can't sign the bill because he hasn't received it.

The governor thanked everyone for speaking [in favor of signing the bill]. He said he hadn’t received the open conference committees bill yet.

“Well, Step 1, I need to get it up here,” the governor said. “I physically couldn’t sign a bill that we don’t have.”

If you ask me, he's starting to set the stage for a pocket veto. So, here is the thing, I write day in day out and don't really ask for anything in return. But, today I'm asking.

I made the call, and I'm asking you to do the same. Call (505) 476-2200 and request that Governor Richardson sign HB 393 into law.

Feeling the Pinch

If you're feeling the pinch from the economic downturn, I've got some bad news for you. Chances are, you are about to be pinched a little harder by property taxes if you live in Bernalillo County:

About 11,000 homes will see a decrease in their values — and in their tax bills — to reflect declines in the housing market, assessor Karen Montoya said.

But people who haven't bought a new home in the past two or three years should expect a 3 percent increase in their home's value this year and every year for the foreseeable future, Montoya said.

Think about that for a second. Let's say you're one of those responsible people who has stayed put in the home you bought five, ten, or twenty or more years ago. You never felt the need to cash out on inflated property increases to buy "bigger and better." Instead, you've continued to live within your means.

Now, let's say you're feeling the economic pinch. Maybe you got laid off. Maybe you've long been retired and are living on a fixed income, but have seen upward of 30 or 40% of your life savings evaporate in the recent market collapse. So, you do what makes sense. You cut your expenses.

Except those who insist on spending more and more money each year - namely, the government - are now going to hit you with higher taxes. And, in their own words, they plan on doing so "this year and every year for the foreseeable future." You're not making more. In fact, you're making less. Yet, here they come to take a bigger and bigger share of that smaller and smaller pie.

Don't you see a problem with this?

A New Worst of List for New Mexico Counties

Transparency was one topic that dominated debate during this recent legislative session. It took many forms. There was the question of whether or not to webcast. The was the question of whether or not to audiocast. There was the defeat of a bill that would have provided a searchable budget online for anyone to search. Now, there is the question of whether or not Governor Richardson will back away from his promise to sign into law a bill that opens conference committees.

Let's face it, the majority of New Mexico's elected officials prefer that we don't see them "making the sausage." Apparently, this desire to operate under a veil of secrecy is not limited to state government. The Sunshine Review just completed a review of every county website in the country, and guess what they found:

This table shows both the percentage of counties in each state with websites, and the average transparency rating each state received. Averages are calculated by adding up the total number of "yeses" received, divided by the number of counties with websites.

So far, Arizona's county websites have received the highest average rating of 6.533. Not only that, but 100% of it's counties actually have websites. New Mexico fared the worst with an average rating of only 1.222.

Another worst of of list ranking for the Land of Enchantment. Is there really any excuse for this? How many corruption cases do we need before we say enough is enough?